Hi there! Many of you are by now familiar with Nate Silver's map of non-black voting trends across the USA:

This is a fine chart for places like Nebraska or Minnesota or Alabama, but in places with a large Native or Latino population such as Texas or New Mexico it makes the map dramatically more blue than what the white population represents. I was bored at work today and decided to just look at white voting trends, and then narrowed it to just white males because a) it makes the results even more dramatic, as white females vote slightly more left-wing than white males and b) let's face it 90% of this forum fits under that distinction. I happened to find a place online listing the vote percentage per state, as well as the exit poll results of just white men. Here they are, with the percentage difference white men voted compared to their state as a whole:

tl;dr: In every single state the white male vote was more pro-McCain than the average, from 1% in Nebraska to 34% in Mississippi (in which, among white male voters, McCain beat Obama by 81 points.) Nationally, the difference was 12 points. Here's what the map would look like if whitey had his way:

Also bear in mind that California, which represents nearly half of Obama's electoral votes, is a state he wins by less than 2 points.

"But wait!" You say. "What about young people? Aren't they really left-wing?" Well, yes, to some degree:

But a funny thing happens if we just look at our fellow crackers:

There's no further breakdown among males and females 18-29 only, so we have to do some extrapolation. Obama beat McCain 52.9-45.7. That means that white people 18-29 were roughly 1.3% more Obama-voting than the national average. And given the fact that white women generally voted about 5% more for Obama:

...And we are faced with the conclusion that white males aged 18-29 voted more right-wing than the national average.

So the next time you see your friend's Facebook wall full of Qassam Counts, the next time your drunken buddy at a party starts complaining about how there's no White Entertainment Television, the next time you see a tea party protest full of angry whiteys, the next time you hear a hot blonde talking about how she likes Rush Limbaugh, the next time you read a post in GBS stating that all illegals should be deported, the next time you hear a co-worker or uncle rambling about birth certificates or welfare or the ZOG or ACORN, you'll know why. White people, white men in particular, are right-wing poo poo.

Is this phenomenon something that occured because white male voters as a whole were racist against Barack Obama personally? Not significantly enough to be a measurable factor. They're just simply right-wing poo poo.

Update II:
I posted earlier about the discrepancies between the white male vote vs. the total vote: 12.1% in 2000, 11.3% in 2004, 11.9% in 2008. But does this mean that white males were more liberal-voting in 2004? No, a roughly 12% difference seems to be a good baseline. The change in 2004 was that all the other groups also shifted rightward for that election, thus hiding part of the white male's right-wing shithood (look at the 'vs. 2000' column):

Shops-At-Gap, the fact that you seem to think that saying "white males are right-wing poo poo" and "blacks are criminals" are equivalent statements belies your own retarded prejudice against blacks, not any of mine towards my own race (and, let's get serious, yours.) the comparison is invalid for two major reasons: 1) the majority of black people are not criminals, not even remotely, whereas the vast majority of white males are conservative, and 2) to the extent that blacks are criminals, this phenomenon is centralized almost exclusively amongst the poor, whereas whitey conservativism transcends lines of economic class. please keep this in mind in your future blitherings tia

The non-white voter population increased 4 points in the interim, and the margin of victory by the Democratic candidate over the Republican candidate among that group increased 10 points. The question is, if neither of these things had been the case, would Barack Obama be President now? To find this out, we assume hypothetically that in 2008 non-white voters still made up 23% of the voter population and of that population they still voted 70% Democrat. Then we multiply the percentage of white voters in this example (77%) by the percentage they voted Democrat in 2008 (43%) and add the percentage of non-white voters (23%) times the percentage they are voting Democrat in our example (70%):

(.77 * .43) + (.23 * .70) = 49.21% Democrat. Under this example, Barack Obama would have lost the popular vote in 2008.

Is the reverse true? If there was the 2008 number of non-crackers (27%) in 2004 and they voted Democrat in the same higher percentage (80%), but otherwise white voters (73%) voted Democrat in the same proportion (41%), would Kerry have won?

(.73 * .41) + (.27 * .80) = 51.53% Democrat. Kerry would have won the popular vote in 2004.

What about if, say, in 2004 there were a 2008 number of non-white voters voting according to 2008 patterns, excepting that black voters only increased by 1% instead of 2% and were still only voting Democrat at the Kerry percentage of 88%, to control partially for a possible impetus to vote for Obama based on his race? In that event non-whites would vote Democrat at a rate of : (.12 * .88) + (.09 * .67) + (.02 * 62) + (.03 * 66) / .26 = 76.2%. Plugging that into our equation:

(.74 * .41) + (.26 * .762) = 50.15% Democrat. Kerry would have won the popular vote in 2004.

tl;dr:
1. The election of Barack Obama is tied most directly and most coherently to the increase both of non-white voters and their increased identification with the Democratic Party.
2. If the non-white voter demographics in 2008 were the same as they were in 2004, Barack Obama would have lost in 2008.
3. If the non-white voter demographics were the same in 2004 as they were in 2008, John Kerry would have been elected in 2004.
4. The Republicans are hosed prettymuch indefinitely unless they can start garnering more than 25% of the non-white vote and/or 65%+ of the white vote.

Update VII:
What a lot of people, especially liberals, do not realize is that while people do vote to some extent on economic class, they do not really vote on policy, and to a much greater extent than either of those they vote on "image." Republicans understand this. This is why Dukakis in the tank sunk him, this is why Bush I struggled against being the "wimp President," this is why Republican commentators keep pumping the outrage-well on Barack Obama's bowling ability or choice in hamburger topping. This is why all Republicans attempt to paint Democratic males as weak elitist queers and Democratic females as hideous, emasculating dykes. It's branding. This is why John Kerry pretended to be a hunter in 2004. This is why Hillary Clinton ate hot dogs with union members during the 2008 primaries. This is why Dubya's handlers marketed him as a born-again tough-talkin' cowboy instead of a rich-boy Yaley male cheerleader. For better or worse, race is a major part of image. The difference between white voters and black voters in 2008 was 52 points. This is greater than the difference between:

Heterosexuals and Homosexuals/Bisexuals (17 points)

White evangelical born-agains and whites with no religion (47 points)

Those who never go to church and those who go weekly or more (24 points)

Union members and non-union members (8 points)

Veterans and non-veterans (10 points)

Rural voters and urbanites (18 points)

Protestants and Jews (33 points)

18-24 year olds and people 65 years or older (21 points)

Self-described liberals and self-described moderates (29)

Self-described conservatives and self-described moderates (40)

The widest economic difference, those who made under $15k and those who made $150k-200k (25 points)

The widest educational difference, those with no high school and those with college degrees (13 points)

Wesley Button posted:

i didn't know all white people lived in the south and that we can make blanket assumptions about a race if they're white but nice job compiling useless statistics to wipe your racist retard tears with

is Illinois "the South?" California? Nevada? Alaska? New York? Connecticut? Pennsylvania? Michigan? New Mexico? Rhode Island? all of these had white males voting ten points or more towards McCain than their state average

Goatstein posted:

is Illinois "the South?" California? Nevada? Alaska? New York? Connecticut? Pennsylvania? Michigan? New Mexico? Rhode Island? all of these had white males voting ten points or more towards McCain than their state average

Wesley Button posted:

nice backpedaling you enjoyable human being racist

i'm sorry that in a thread depicting statistical averages you cannot grasp the implicit and explicit assumption that i was talking in generalities but if it makes you stop crying angry cracker tears all over both my thread and your Grilled Stuf't Burrito then yes i am super racist and also probably a race traitor who will get his when RAHOWA comes, now please get out

we were filling out course evaluations in my intro to international relations class today and the girl in front of me wrote a paragraph long rant about how "liberal and biased" our textbook was. our textbook was literally just a bunch of technical terms, with a couple chapters discussing how people in developing countries are poor.